Plenary Interview: In Conversation with Dr. Valentina Finger

Our second plenary speaker, Dr. Valentina Finger, is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer in English literature at Ludwig Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich. Her academic journey has taken her from Fashion Journalism and Media Communication, followed by Comparative Literature at LMU and at King’s College London, bringing an interdisciplinary perspective to her work on early modern drama and performance. An early modernist by training, Valentina’s research explores the intersections of theatre, material culture, dress, and cosmetics in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England. She is currently investigating representations of dress in utopian prose fiction throughout literary history.

Valentina’s favourite Shakespeare play is The Tempest – one she estimates to have read at least eight times! When I asked whether her interpretation of the play has changed over time, she reflected on how each return has revealed new possibilities for analysis, spanning questions of colonialism and power to more specialised interests in books.

Despite this continued interest in The Tempest, when asked if she had a favourite Shakespearean character, Valentina noted that she has been “most fascinated” with Prince Hal since working on his plays for her bachelor's thesis.

“I would not even say that I particularly like his 'personali­ty', but his shapeshifting activities via disguise, dissemblance, and personal development still intrigue me to an extent that I read them differently every time I return to the Henry plays".

Her mention of disguise and shapeshifting brings us onto this year’s conference theme – Shakespeare under the Microscope – and its focus on forms of surveillance, secrecy, and investigations into the body. 

However, it is not Prince Hal that Dr. Finger will be discussing at BritGrad 2026, but her work on early modern material cultures. Her paper – Shakespeare Through the Telescope: Monarchs, Magi, and What They See in Mirrors – will shed new light on her doctoral dissertation and monograph: Mirrors in Shakespeare and Early Modern English Drama: Power, Gender and the Magic of the Theatre, which was published with Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare (Arden Studies in Early Modern Drama) in February 2026. In this work, Valentina examines mirrors and acts of mirroring as rhetorical devices on the early modern stage. 

When I asked her what she hopes our delegates will take away from this paper, particularly in relation to our conference theme, Valentina noted:

“I hope to provide an impression of how specular instruments changed the scopic regime of early modernity. My aim is to contribute to the conference's focus on modes of surveillance and observation by showing how popular narratives circulating around 1600 established mirrors as legendary tools of imperial monitoring in their readers' minds and how Shakespeare took up elements of their plot structures in Richard II and Macbeth. The conference topic's third focus on forensic analysis I will address in my discussion of two non-Shakespearean plays (The Alchemist and A Game at Chess), whose trick mirrors make evident the period's blurry transitioning from occult (natural-)magic traditions (scrying) to proto-scientific culture (empirical optics).”

By tracing the cultural significance of mirrors across Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean drama, Dr. Finger's paper offers an insightful perspective on the evolving relationship between vision, authority, and knowledge in the early modern period. Her plenary is sure to spark rich conversation among our attendees working across literary, historical, and cultural studies.

When chatting to Valentina about this work, I was particularly interested in how she engages with stage props and material culture as a primary route of enquiry. I questioned her on what objects (particularly stage properties) can reveal which close textual analysis alone cannot. To this, she responded: 

“I suggest a focus on material 'realities' can add substance to the immateriality of reading a text 400 years after its production. Being an enthusiastic close-reader myself, I am not saying that textual analysis is insubstantial. Rather, I believe that considering dramatic texts in their material contexts, which can refer to stage properties as well as references to early modern material culture beyond the page or stage, makes them tangible as what they really (at least to a considerable part) are: records of corporeal stage actions performed in front of a physically present audience and materialised in and via writing.”

Despite offering a wealth of meaning, working with tangible objects in early modern drama presents some significant methodological challenges. Valentina recalls when she began working on early modern mirrors, describing how she “very soon learned that due to these specific objects' fragile material condition (especially of those made of glass) few to no specimen […] are still existent.” She goes on to describe how this presents a greater challenge than working on a distant historical period alone, noting how researchers are left guessing and drawing connections with textual references to draw conclusions. Further, Valentina notes:

“While I have encountered several records of mirrors used by a great variety of individuals and for various purposes, I think the greatest challenge for me was the lack of hard facts of how and what kind of mirrors were actually used as stage props. It is possible to deduce a lot from the sources available. Still, much remains argumentative guesswork. But perhaps that is part of the appeal.”

Dr. Finger's response highlights a challenge that will be familiar to many early modern scholars: the need to reconstruct historical practices from incomplete and often elusive evidence. The process of piecing together fragmentary archival records, balancing careful deduction with informed speculation, speaks directly to the conference's interest in forensic approaches to analysis. We look forward to further discussion of these archival methodologies during her plenary and anticipate that many delegates will recognise the particular appeal (and challenge) of working at the boundaries of what the historical record can reveal.

Returning to Dr. Finger’s plenary paper specifically, I was interested to learn more about the role and function of mirrors in the early modern period. I queried her how attuned or implicated early modern theatre-goers may have felt in relation to the rhetoric of mirroring on the stage, particularly thinking about the theatre as a space of self-surveillance. She responded:

“We could argue that to some extent the theatre in its very origin was designed as a space of watching, also oneself. The Greek term given to the architectural setting of theatrical performance, théatron, translates as such. To this, the Aristotelian idea of katharsis plus the ancient dictum of theatrical action as a mirror of/to society add an inherent invitation to self-reflection. If we consider these aspects in relation to how early modern theatrical culture operated not in a vacuum but rather at the heart of a highly charged socio-political environment, which in turn affected the theatre, I dare say, yes: producing and consuming theatrical representation is closely connected to such acts of (self) observation.”

Picking up on this idea of selfhood in Valentina’s response, I questioned whether she sees these dynamics of self-reflection and observation articulated in contemporary adaptations of Shakespeare’s works. To this, she replied:

“I have seen productions of, for example, Macbeth that got rid of the witches' apparitions of Act 4, including the glass held by the spectral eighth king, and moved them entirely into Macbeth's verbalisation of his unseen imagination. The scene still worked, but then again, the mirror also was still there, just on another level of representation. This is how I believe reinterpretations of plays involving mirrors and their reconfigurations on stage more generally continue to address the ideas associated with mirror moments: we might not always see them (like the invisible offstage laboratory in The Alchemist), but what their specular presence contributes to the play survives such acts of translation.”

Dr. Finger's response offers a compelling reminder that the significance of theatrical objects extends beyond their material presence on stage. Even when mirrors are removed, reimagined, or translated into other forms of representation, the questions they raise about selfhood, perception, and observation remain central to the dramatic experience. Her observations suggest that contemporary adaptations continue to engage with these themes, demonstrating the enduring power of Shakespearean and early modern drama to invite reflection on how individuals see themselves and are seen by others. 

To round off our rich discussion, I asked Valentina where she sees Shakespeare and early modern research evolving in the coming years, and what makes this area of study so vital to today’s cultural, political, or academic climate. Her response foregrounded the way that meaning can be made mailable; stretched and adapted in new context as the plays are approached from new perspectives – something which she describes as ‘vital’ for the field of Shakespeare studies. On this subject, Valentina remarks:

“being (made) able to read and talk about Shakespeare or attending a performance of his plays intellectually, emotionally, and mentally empowers individuals coming from different social spheres. Since we often witness a sense of cultural superiority attached to Shakespeare's name, realising that everyone can and may draw meaning and value from his plays helps building confidence. I thus imagine the field to become even more interactive in the coming years by also productively applying new technologies.”

Dr. Finger's reflections offer an inspiring vision for the future of Shakespeare studies: one that embraces new perspectives, new technologies, and new audiences while remaining attentive to the enduring questions these texts invite us to ask. Her emphasis on the accessibility of meaning and the empowering potential of engaging with Shakespeare resonates strongly with the conference's commitment to fostering inclusive and dynamic scholarly conversations. We are grateful to Dr. Finger for sharing her insights and look forward to welcoming her as our second plenary speaker on 18 June, where delegates will have the opportunity to explore these ideas in greater depth.

If you’re interested in Valentina’s work or any of the themes addressed in this interview more broadly, be sure to purchase a ticket for this year’s British Graduate Shakespeare Conference here.

2026 schedule: www.britgrad.com/schedule